From: Michael Witten Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:56:57 GMT Subject: Re: Git and Documentation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:47, Michael Witten wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:31, Tomas Carnecky wrote: >> If the documentation is generated as part of the build, then there is no >> reason to have it part of the history - you can always rebuild it from >> the source. For the same reason you don't put compiled source into git. > > Well, theoretically. > > According to: > >  http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob_plain;f=MaintNotes;hb=todo > > the git project's repository itself tracks generated documentation for > practical reasons: > >  The "html" and "man" [branches] are >  autogenerated documentation from the >  tip of the "master" branch; the tip >  of "html" is extracted to be visible >  at kernel.org at: > >    http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/ > I should add that generating documentation is time consuming and often requires brittle software; there's a lot to gain by having one system produce the same output for virtually everyone else.